Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RabidMongoose

Religion Deeper Meanings

63 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RabidMongoose

My religious views are a little unusual in that I see God as a state of oneness.

Oneness cannot know itself because there is nothing to measure itself against or compare itself with. This is because everything is unified into a state of oneness instead of separate things existing relative to other separate things.

The initial thoughts of wanting to know itself collapse the oneness into a vast number of mind fragments each experiencing its own reality. This includes our own mind fragments.

Its a bit meta-physical but this process occurs because individuals (which are minds existing relative to other minds) have thoughts not oneness (thoughts are a form of duality not non-duality). So thoughts collapse oneness into individual mind fragments. On top of this all things that exist need a location to exist at relative to everywhere else, a point in time relative to the past and future, and need to be made out of something relative to other things it isn't made out of. The thoughts that Individuals have exist and therefore bring into exist space, time, and matter. In essence, the minds own version of reality.

Memory is not a property of God because memory requires distinct separate events to remember. Distinct separate events are not a state of oneness. So only individuals have memories not God. As individuals have no memory of being God they dont know that they are God. They instead measure and compare themselves to the things in their reality and develop the identity of a human or other species.

Identity taps into a creative force as it shapes the way we see ourselves in our reality. In essence, it determines the thoughts we have of ourselves introducing further forms of duality. In essence, dragging contents into our reality. The purpose of life is to realise we are God. Once that change in identity occurs we drag contents into our reality fitting of a God. I see Christ as knowing this secret.

The recreation of heaven on Earth with the stars falling from the sky etc, is a description of our universe being destroyed and replaced by a perfect one. All caused by a shift in identity from that of a man or woman to a God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It all sounds pretty good until I get to the we are God part. Then I bristle. 

I could go for something like...we are part of God, or we have some kind of "divine spark" that comes from God. 

Kind of like a universal consciousness that we come from and maybe return to. 

There are certainly people who auto-deify, but in my personal experience, they're not especially spiritual. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Sometimes I think it's a gnostic message that has been misinterpreted.

The kingdom of God is within you might just mean you don't need to go to a church to experience God. 

It doesn't necessarily mean that you are God. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

I'm all for one-ness, but introducing the concept of God just creates another duality in the mind. "Now I must become God or realize I'm God, find God within me, who exactly is this God person," etc. We're focusing on some concept instead of the non-concept of one-ness.

Some awareness of one-ness does not require knowledge. Knowledge is the antithesis of unity. Innocence is the way of unity or some feeling of one-ness. 

In short,I agree with the OP except for his God idea. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

My religious views are a little unusual in that I see God as a state of oneness.

Oneness cannot know itself because there is nothing to measure itself against or compare itself with. This is because everything is unified into a state of oneness instead of separate things existing relative to other separate things.

The initial thoughts of wanting to know itself collapse the oneness into a vast number of mind fragments each experiencing its own reality. This includes our own mind fragments.

Its a bit meta-physical but this process occurs because individuals (which are minds existing relative to other minds) have thoughts not oneness (thoughts are a form of duality not non-duality). So thoughts collapse oneness into individual mind fragments. On top of this all things that exist need a location to exist at relative to everywhere else, a point in time relative to the past and future, and need to be made out of something relative to other things it isn't made out of. The thoughts that Individuals have exist and therefore bring into exist space, time, and matter. In essence, the minds own version of reality.

Memory is not a property of God because memory requires distinct separate events to remember. Distinct separate events are not a state of oneness. So only individuals have memories not God. As individuals have no memory of being God they dont know that they are God. They instead measure and compare themselves to the things in their reality and develop the identity of a human or other species.

Identity taps into a creative force as it shapes the way we see ourselves in our reality. In essence, it determines the thoughts we have of ourselves introducing further forms of duality. In essence, dragging contents into our reality. The purpose of life is to realise we are God. Once that change in identity occurs we drag contents into our reality fitting of a God. I see Christ as knowing this secret.

The recreation of heaven on Earth with the stars falling from the sky etc, is a description of our universe being destroyed and replaced by a perfect one. All caused by a shift in identity from that of a man or woman to a God.

It is just me?, i am at a  loss what is going on here ^. 

As for the bold, is that not a form of narcissism? I know a few people who think they are god. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
13 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm all for one-ness, but introducing the concept of God just creates another duality in the mind. "Now I must become God or realize I'm God, find God within me, who exactly is this God person," etc. We're focusing on some concept instead of the non-concept of one-ness.

Some awareness of one-ness does not require knowledge. Knowledge is the antithesis of unity. Innocence is the way of unity or some feeling of one-ness. 

In short,I agree with the OP except for his God idea. 

 

I guess you could look at it as an ideal.

Striving for goodness...wanting to be better than you are.

Something like that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, freetoroam said:

It is just me?, i am at a  loss what is going on here ^. 

As for the bold, is that not a form of narcissism? I know a few people who think they are god. 

I don't think they intended it that way, but that's how it feels to me. 

It feels like the ultimate narcissism. 

I have an aversion to the idea that is not controllable.

It's kinda like how I feel when I encounter a spider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
15 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

It is just me?, i am at a  loss what is going on here ^. 

As for the bold, is that not a form of narcissism? I know a few people who think they are god. 

I'm wary of anything or anyone that state that either "we are god" or "we are a part of god", screams ego trip to me. Kinda goes back to thinking that the universe was created just for us. I'm beginning to think that religious/spiritual beliefs are a form of narcissism. Because they always seem to attract those with an inflated sense of self.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

 Hi Xeno.... I notice you say the universe was "created".... I'm not being critical,. I notice people often say saomething similar...sort of without thinking .    I'm always fascinated by the similarity in the ideas of the universe being created by God (one) ...or coming into "being"   Expanding, Inflating, from a purely scientific  "singularity".  ...(one)

i don't see it as being egotistical ,or narcisstic, to think of oneself as being part of the one....either one.

.   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
15 minutes ago, lightly said:

 Hi Xeno.... I notice you say the universe was "created".... I'm not being critical,. I notice people often say saomething similar...sort of without thinking .    I'm always fascinated by the similarity in the ideas of the universe being created by God (one) ...or coming into "being"   Expanding, Inflating, from a purely scientific  "singularity".  ...(one)

i don't see it as being egotistical ,or narcisstic, to think of oneself as being part of the one....either one.

.   

 

We are a byproduct of earths development. It is very egotistical to think that the whole universe exist just for you, me or anyone. That's putting yourself on a pedestal and saying, "Look how special I am!" when none of us are special.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I'm wary of anything or anyone that state that either "we are god" or "we are a part of god", screams ego trip to me. Kinda goes back to thinking that the universe was created just for us. I'm beginning to think that religious/spiritual beliefs are a form of narcissism. Because they always seem to attract those with an inflated sense of self.

It's more like the way people think of a universal consciousness or God as the All. 

Not really as being some particularly special creatures. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
14 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

It's more like the way people think of a universal consciousness or God as the All. 

Not really as being some particularly special creatures. 

Even doing that to me is like paint by numbers and you're blind. So you've no idea what exactly you're doing or if it's even correct. Just guess work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Posted (edited)

The great sages, and the great scientists, all agree, "multiplicity is only apparent" !  We are also told that the realisation of this, the acme of our psychological evolution, is the recognition of this truth, in the state of "unity consciousness". Of course, most, if not all of us, get stalled, or sidetracked, along this pilgrim's pathway. And the very good reason for that, is that to lose the sense of separation, that of being a distinct entity, is deadly dangerous, in this world. Therein lies the great conundrum, the seeming opposition of the life-force, and Truth. Your mission, if you be a true seeker, is to reconcile those two !

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

Sometimes I think it's a gnostic message that has been misinterpreted.

The kingdom of God is within you might just mean you don't need to go to a church to experience God. 

It doesn't necessarily mean that you are God. 

It could also mean both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I'm wary of anything or anyone that state that either "we are god" or "we are a part of god", screams ego trip to me. Kinda goes back to thinking that the universe was created just for us. I'm beginning to think that religious/spiritual beliefs are a form of narcissism. Because they always seem to attract those with an inflated sense of self.

That assumes that all the other sentient beings on all the other planets out there are not also part of god and part of a universal oneness. The universe was not created just for us but  our self aware cognition makes us special (unique in earth but probably not in our galaxy)  

Humans NEED to have self worth, self pride, and a strong sense of identity. It is a survival characteristic, and those without it tend not to survive, or breed. 

But they will also need to learn that they are an integrated part of a much larger ecology, and  that harming any part of it,  harms them. 

We are  god, or a part of god, in the same way we are part of Gaea, or the planet.   Harm yourself and  you harm the planet. Harm the planet or any part of it ,and you harm yourself. Maybe the linkage/connection is usually minor, but it exists, and can sometimes become significant,  with some individuals who make a big difference.   .  

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
2 hours ago, Habitat said:

The great sages, and the great scientists, all agree, "multiplicity is only apparent" !  We are also told that the realisation of this, the acme of our psychological evolution, is the recognition of this truth, in the state of "unity consciousness". Of course, most, if not all of us, get stalled, or sidetracked, along this pilgrim's pathway. And the very good reason for that, is that to lose the sense of separation, that of being a distinct entity, is deadly dangerous, in this world. Therein lies the great conundrum, the seeming opposition of the life-force, and Truth. Your mission, if you be a true seeker, is to reconcile those two !

I consider the loss of the sense of separation brings compassion to us, and is not dangerous. 

It is true that for most of us we get staled or sidetracked along the pilgrim's pathway. I think this is due to our fear of loosing our comfortable and usual sense of our conditioned self. We may fear we are loosing "who we are". "The fear of enlightenment." 

I can understand for some or many this would be a problem. If our usual sense of self were to disappear, who would be left? What remains is our fundamental self, we never disappear. This process is really not a problem, as it occurs gradually as we begin to realize our ego-self is not really us, it is a production we construct for ourselves, a mask, which is the meaning of persona, the false face we put on to face the world and ourselves. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Posted (edited)

Perhaps I should have said, "complete loss of the sense of separation", which has to be perilous. But, no doubt, partial loss does lead to a corresponding increase in compassion.

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Perhaps I should have said, "complete loss of the sense of separation", which has to be perilous. Bur no doubt, partial loss does lead to a corresponding increase in compassion.

The great sages also speak of moments in meditation when there occurs a complete loss of the sense of separation. I think this can occur when we forget ourself and just observe. It's when all effort ceases. It's very subtle. 

When we understand ourselves we can understand others. We have an insight into their behavior because we have seen the same behavior in ourself.  In this sense we are not separate from them. I think in this way some reconciliation can occur between us, some calming of conflict. 

Of course, it depends how stuck in themselves others are. :)  But I think religion's deeper meaning is to have compassion even fore those. Under the right circumstances even the most hardened may be touched. Let's not give up hope.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Humans NEED to have self worth, self pride, and a strong sense of identity. It is a survival characteristic, and those without it tend not to survive, or breed. 

But they will also need to learn that they are an integrated part of a much larger ecology, and  that harming any part of it,  harms them. 

Agree.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

We are  god, or a part of god

Do not agree.

We are part of a chain of breeding and evolution which is posible on planet Earth like many other forms of life, purely because of our position in our solar system. A bit of a tilt and humans would not be to naturally survive.

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Harm yourself and  you harm the planet

No, the planet does not need humans.

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Harm the planet or any part of it ,and you harm yourself.  

Absolutely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

Agree.

Do not agree.

We are part of a chain of breeding and evolution which is posible on planet Earth like many other forms of life, purely because of our position in our solar system. A bit of a tilt and humans would not be to naturally survive.

No, the planet does not need humans.

Absolutely. 

 You can not  take half a sentence out of context.

I said

We are  god, or a part of god, in the same way we are part of Gaea, or the planet.

ie we are an integrated part of what humans call god. just as we are an integrated part of the ecology of earth   For the sake of the argument, that can be a real physical entity or an idea and concept oft he human mind. 

Thus, while you might not believe god exists, my point about humans integrated into the environment still is true  

If you harm yourself, or are less than you can be,  then the planet is harmed and is less than it can be, even if only in a tiny amount .ie you then have less capacity to mke a difference and to improve the world and environment. The earth is harmed by the loss of ANY of its constituent parts. That includes humans, just as much as any other life form on earth.  

The same is true every time a tree or an animal is harmed  by a human,  although the y do not have the same potential as humans do, to alter their world.

Of course  it is inevitable that harm will occur, but the important  thing is to realise the interdependence of all life on earth and to work to strengthen it and make it sustainable One way to do this is via yourself and your behaviors eg reducing your ecological footprint to a sustainable level (generic point ) but overall we really need to reduce ( through natural means)  the population of humans down to a couple of hundred million not billions. Then they could all live a healthy and equal life on a paradise planet 

The planet does not NEED anything. It is non sentient, so need does not arise.

However humans exist and have the capacity to destroy the planet or to rejuvenate it to a paradise world, even better than nature  evolved it to be. (because evolution is not intelligent and thus cant do as well as humans can ) :) 

Ps a bit of a tilt, and humans as we know them might not be able to survive, but this does not mean that another form of life might not evolve, develop self aware intelligence,  eventually join a forum just like this one, to debate its place on earth  :) 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
33 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 You can not  take half a sentence out of context.

I said

We are  god, or a part of god, in the same way we are part of Gaea, or the planet.

ie we are an integrated part of what humans call god. just as we are an integrated part of the ecology of earth   For the sake of the argument, that can be a real physical entity or an idea and concept oft he human mind. 

Thus, while you might not believe god exists, my point about humans integrated into the environment still is true  

If you harm yourself, or are less than you can be,  then the planet is harmed and is less than it can be, even if only in a tiny amount .ie you then have less capacity to mke a difference and to improve the world and environment. The earth is harmed by the loss of ANY of its constituent parts. That includes humans, just as much as any other life form on earth.  

The same is true every time a tree or an animal is harmed  by a human,  although the y do not have the same potential as humans do, to alter their world.

Of course  it is inevitable that harm will occur, but the important  thing is to realise the interdependence of all life on earth and to work to strengthen it and make it sustainable One way to do this is via yourself and your behaviors eg reducing your ecological footprint to a sustainable level (generic point ) but overall we really need to reduce ( through natural means)  the population of humans down to a couple of hundred million not billions. Then they could all live a healthy and equal life on a paradise planet 

The planet does not NEED anything. It is non sentient, so need does not arise.

However humans exist and have the capacity to destroy the planet or to rejuvenate it to a paradise world, even better than nature  evolved it to be. (because evolution is not intelligent and thus cant do as well as humans can ) :) 

Ps a bit of a tilt, and humans as we know them might not be able to survive, but this does not mean that another form of life might not evolve, develop self aware intelligence,  eventually join a forum just like this one, to debate its place on earth  :) 

I have to ask, because it bugs me alot. This is completely out of context by the by.

When you type the y are you meaning they and it's a typo or are you actually saying the y.

I assume the y are just a group of things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
32 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I have to ask, because it bugs me alot. This is completely out of context by the by.

When you type the y are you meaning they and it's a typo or are you actually saying the y.

I assume the y are just a group of things?

Just a typo I think, like "oft he" is meant to be of the.

  I know that people can read sentences without half the vowels in them, so I am not as careful as i should be, although I take (a lot) more time redrafting and correcting a post, than i do writing it. i think really fast and i have to try and type as fast as i can think,  so it wont slow me down  This means my typing is not good on first draft.

  Lastly, I can only just read the print on my computer  screen without my glasses, and can't even see if i am missing full stops etc unless i peer closely My screen is about 2 feet from my eyes and i cant move it any closer.  But my glasses are only for long vision so they don't help.  (had to correct the  "they" again,here  :) )

I would have thought the context of the sentence made it perfectly clear 

The same is true every time a tree or an animal is harmed  by a human,  although the y do not have the same potential as humans do, to alter their world.

ie  the subject is a tree or animal  and the y do not have the same potential as animals do to alter their world.  laugh out loud i typed it exactly the same way again in this sentence  

Some people call me pedantic, but i cant imagine anyone being fussed about minor typos.

Sorry if it does jump out at you.

I knw tht ppl cn rd sntncs wtht th vwls n thm 

I bet you can easily read the sentence above  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Just a typo I think, like "oft he" is meant to be of the.

  I know that people can read sentences without half the vowels in them, so I am not as careful as i should be, although I take (a lot) more time redrafting and correcting a post, than i do writing it. i think really fast and i have to try and type as fast as i can think,  so it wont slow me down  This means my typing is not good on first draft.

  Lastly, I can only just read the print on my computer  screen without my glasses, and can't even see if i am missing full stops etc unless i peer closely My screen is about 2 feet from my eyes and i cant move it any closer.  But my glasses are only for long vision so they don't help.  (had to correct the  "they" again,here  :) )

I would have thought the context of the sentence made it perfectly clear 

The same is true every time a tree or an animal is harmed  by a human,  although the y do not have the same potential as humans do, to alter their world.

ie  the subject is a tree or animal  and the y do not have the same potential as animals do to alter their world.  laugh out loud i typed it exactly the same way again in this sentence  

Some people call me pedantic, but i cant imagine anyone being fussed about minor typos.

Sorry if it does jump out at you.

I knw tht ppl cn rd sntncs wtht th vwls n thm 

I bet you can easily read the sentence above  

Nope I don't have a clue really what the sentence means.

It's just that the y or they thing, sometimes it's confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Nope I don't have a clue really what the sentence means.

It's just that the y or they thing, sometimes it's confusing.

Ah well, maybe it is a learned skill, but as teachers we were taught that humans can read a wide range of variation in sentences quite accurately,  and that, while accuracy is important in some tasks, it is not in others, as long as people can work out what you meant  The example i gave is used at many language conferences and believe it or not almost everyone can read it   (just try saying it out loud) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ah well, maybe it is a learned skill, but as teachers we were taught that humans can read a wide range of variation in sentences quite accurately,  and that, while accuracy is important in some tasks, it is not in others, as long as people can work out what you meant  The example i gave is used at many language conferences and believe it or not almost everyone can read it   (just try saying it out loud) 

Ah without! Get it now.

I know a fellow Irish man invented Text messaging so it's our fault for three decline of the English language.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.